Sir Keir Starmer’s European human rights reset was today branded ‘a waste of time’ that won’t help take back control of Britain’s borders.
Ministers hailed an agreement at a summit in Moldova this morning aimed at making it easier to deport illegal migrants and foreign criminals.
It was signed by the European Convention on Human Rights’ (ECHR) 46 members, including the UK.
But critics pointed out the controversial ECHR’s text remained unchanged and that previous similar side-agreements, known as ‘political declarations’, have made no difference.
The Tories and Reform UK have vowed to leave the ECHR if they win the next election and argue it’s the only way to take back control of the borders.
But Sir Keir sent his closest Cabinet ally and former human rights lawyer Lord Hermer to the summit, partly to reassure European court chiefs that Britain was committed to the treaty.
His attendance, alongside Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, fuelled suspicions any agreement would amount to ‘business as usual’ as he has previously been accused of being an ‘activist’ for human rights that favours Britain’s foes.
His previous clients have included former Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams and 9/11 terror attack plotter Mustafa al-Hawsawi.
But allies point out he has also represented British Armed Forces staff, Veterans and worked on Task Force on Accountability for Crimes Committed in Ukraine.
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper in Moldova this morning, where the agreement was signed by the ECHR’s 46 members
Ms Cooper in Moldovan capital Chisinău, where the agreement was signed by the ECHR’s 46 members
Lord Hermer, the Attorney General and former human rights lawyer, accompanied Ms Cooper on the trip to Moldovan capital Chisinău
Today’s agreement, known as a ‘political declaration’, aims to limit the ECHR’s Article 8, which protects the right to family life, and Article 3, the ban on inhumane treatment.
More than two dozen countries were calling for an overhaul so that these two articles would lead to less illegal migrants and foreign criminals successfully using them to avoid deportation.
But the agreement, struck in the Moldovan capital Chisinău, did not lead to the treaty’s text being changed.
And it made clear that UK judges should still consider whether deporting someone to another country could cause them to suffer ‘a negative impact’ that may breach their rights under article 3.
In relation to article 8, while it made clear European judges would need ‘strong reasons’ to overrule the decisions of domestic justices, the agreement said deportations must be ‘in accordance’ with human rights law and be ‘in pursuit of a legitimate aim’.
Among these, it said, were ‘national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country’ and ‘the prevention of disorder or crime’.
The agreement also said countries should be allowed to pursue new approaches ‘such as return hubs to address and potentially deter irregular migration’.
Ministers have spoken to a number of countries about the possibility of hosting return hubs where the UK could send failed asylum seekers before they are deported.
But experts said the declaration amounted to little more than ‘reaffirming existing principles’.
They also said it would be unlikely to change the decisions of UK immigration and human rights judges.
Former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption said a similar declaration agreed in Brighton in 2012, aimed at reining in the power of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which oversees the Convention, made ‘absolutely no practical difference’ and that ‘past experience suggests political declarations don’t get very far’.
Speaking to the BBC, he added: ‘I would expect judges deciding immigration and human rights cases generally to have regards to political declarations.
‘But ultimately, what binds them is the case law of the Strasbourg court and they’re not going to drift very far from that…Articles 3 and 8 are deeply embedded in its case law, and therefore extremely difficult to get rid of.’
Former Attorney General Michael Ellis added that the declaration ‘doesn’t seem to do anything other than reaffirm existing principles’, adding: ‘It will not make any difference at all.
‘It’s a complete waste of time.’
The European Court of Human Rights (pictured), in Strasbourg, administers the European Convention on Human Rights
Robert Jenrick, a former Tory immigration minister who defected to Reform, said the UK should ‘quit’ the ECHR
Robert Jenrick, a former Tory immigration minister who defected to Reform, said: ‘The only way to secure our borders and deport the thousands of foreign criminals in our country is to quit and make these decisions in our own Parliament.’
Chris Philp, the Tories’ shadow home secretary, said: ‘This will make no difference whatsoever.
‘We’ve seen this before with the so-called Brighton declaration over a decade ago and even domestic UK laws that tried to specify how the ECHR should be interpreted.
‘But we found that democratically elected politicians can say what they like – judges in Strasbourg and the UK will just keep applying their own increasingly insane definitions of the vaguely-worded ECHR articles. The only way to fix this is to leave the ECHR entirely.’
The Court and Convention are part of the Council of Europe, a separate organisation from the European Union which Britain remains a member of.
In December – six months after Denmark and Italy initially sparked calls for changes – Sir Keir jumped on the bandwagon by saying the ECHR needed modernising so nations could protect their borders and see off the rise of Right-wing parties.
But critics say ECHR chiefs are not interested in meaningful reform or re-writing the treaty.
